netdev - Re: Network performance with small packets

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Wed, 2 Feb 2011 19:32:13 +0200
From:	"Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@...hat.com>
To:	Shirley Ma <mashirle@...ibm.com>
Cc:	Krishna Kumar2 <krkumar2@...ibm.com>,
	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>, kvm@...r.kernel.org,
	mashirle@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
	netdev-owner@...r.kernel.org, Sridhar Samudrala <sri@...ibm.com>,
	Steve Dobbelstein <steved@...ibm.com>
Subject: Re: Network performance with small packets

On Wed, Feb 02, 2011 at 09:10:35AM -0800, Shirley Ma wrote:
> On Wed, 2011-02-02 at 17:47 +0200, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > On Wed, Feb 02, 2011 at 07:39:45AM -0800, Shirley Ma wrote:
> > > On Wed, 2011-02-02 at 12:48 +0200, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > > > Yes, I think doing this in the host is much simpler,
> > > > just send an interrupt after there's a decent amount
> > > > of space in the queue.
> > > > 
> > > > Having said that the simple heuristic that I coded
> > > > might be a bit too simple.
> > > 
> > > >From the debugging out what I have seen so far (a single small
> > message
> > > TCP_STEAM test), I think the right approach is to patch both guest
> > and
> > > vhost.
> > 
> > One problem is slowing down the guest helps here.
> > So there's a chance that just by adding complexity
> > in guest driver we get a small improvement :(
> > 
> > We can't rely on a patched guest anyway, so
> > I think it is best to test guest and host changes separately.
> > 
> > And I do agree something needs to be done in guest too,
> > for example when vqs share an interrupt, we
> > might invoke a callback when we see vq is not empty
> > even though it's not requested. Probably should
> > check interrupts enabled here?
> 
> Yes, I modified xmit callback something like below:
> 
> static void skb_xmit_done(struct virtqueue *svq)
> {
>         struct virtnet_info *vi = svq->vdev->priv;
> 
>         /* Suppress further interrupts. */
>         virtqueue_disable_cb(svq);
> 
>         /* We were probably waiting for more output buffers. */
>         if (netif_queue_stopped(vi->dev)) {
>                 free_old_xmit_skbs(vi);
>                 if (virtqueue_free_size(svq)  <= svq->vring.num / 2) {
>                         virtqueue_enable_cb(svq);
> 			return;
> 		}
>         }
> 	netif_wake_queue(vi->dev);
> }

OK, but this should have no effect with a vhost patch
which should ensure that we don't get an interrupt
until the queue is at least half empty.
Right?

> > > The problem I have found is a regression for single  small
> > > message TCP_STEAM test. Old kernel works well for TCP_STREAM, only
> > new
> > > kernel has problem.
> > 
> > Likely new kernel is faster :)
> 
> > > For Steven's problem, it's multiple stream TCP_RR issues, the old
> > guest
> > > doesn't perform well, so does new guest kernel. We tested reducing
> > vhost
> > > signaling patch before, it didn't help the performance at all.
> > > 
> > > Thanks
> > > Shirley
> > 
> > Yes, it seems unrelated to tx interrupts. 
> 
> The issue is more likely related to latency.

Could be. Why do you think so?

> Do you have anything in
> mind on how to reduce vhost latency?
> 
> Thanks
> Shirley

Hmm, bypassing the bridge might help a bit.
Are you using tap+bridge or macvtap?
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html